# . 

. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ROBERT CHARLES HYATT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY, 

Defendant. 

Civil Action 2:11-cv-685 

Judge Michael H. Watson 

Magistrate Judge E.A. Preston Deavers 

ORDER 

Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking review 

of an adverse decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner''). 

This matter is before the Court for consideration of the July 24, 2012 Report and 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 17.) The Magistrate Judge 

specifically recommended that the Court affirm the decision of the Commissioner. 

On August 8, 2012, Plaintiff filed his Objections to the Report and 

Recommendation. (ECF No. 18.) For the following reasons, Plaintiff's Objections 

are OVERRULED and the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. The 

decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. 

Plaintiff filed an application for social security disability insurance benefits 

alleging disability since July 20, 2007. The medical record reflects that Plaintiff 

suffers from hip and back problems, and has also received treatment for bipolar 

Case: 2:11-cv-00685-MHW-EPD Doc #: 19 Filed: 09/18/12 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
disorder.1 On May 24, 2010, an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") issued a 

decision, which ultimately became the Commissioner's final decision, finding that 

Plaintiff was not disabled during the relevant period. The ALJ concluded that 

Plaintiff engaged in substantial gainful activity following his alleged onset date, 

but did have a continuous twelve-month period during which he did not engage in 

substantial gainful activity. The ALJ's other findings included that Plaintiff did not 

have a severe mental impairment; could perform the full range of light work; and 

could perform his past work as a substitute teacher. 

On July 24, 2012, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court affirm 

the Commissioner's decision. Plaintitrs objections, for the most part, revisit 

arguments he raised within his initial Statement of Errors. Plaintiff maintains that 

the evidence supports a finding that he had a severe mental impairment. 

Additionally, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ's hypothetical question to the 

vocational expert failed to adequately convey Plaintitrs limitations. Moreover, 

Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred in considering Plaintitrs credibility. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Court reviews Plaintifrs Objections to 

the Report and Recommendation de novo. The Court may accept, reject, or alter 

the Magistrate Judge's recommendation as is sees fit. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1 ). 

Within the Social Security context, the Court reviews whether substantial 

1 The Report and Recommendation provides a detailed overview of the relevant 

medical records and the administrative hearing testimony. (Report & Recommendation 

2-9, ECF No. 17.) 

Page 2 of 4 

Case: 2:11-cv-00685-MHW-EPD Doc #: 19 Filed: 09/18/12 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
evidence supports the decisions of the Commissioner and whether the 

Commissioner made its decision pursuant to the applicable standards. Ealy v. 

Comm'rofSoc. Sec., 594 F.3d 504,512 (6th Cir. 2010). 

Having performed a de novo review of the Report and Recommendations, 

the Court agrees with, and adopts, the findings and reasoning of the Magistrate 

Judge.2 Specifically, the Court finds that the combination of evidence from 

treating psychiatrist Vinutha C. Reddy, M.D., as well as non-medical evidence 

regarding Plaintiffs work history, provide substantial evidence that Plaintiff did not 

have a severe mental impairment during the relevant time period. Even 

assuming that the ALJ should have found a severe impairment, he went on to 

consider Plaintiffs RFC and justifiably concluded that Plaintiff could perform a full 

range of light work. Additionally, the Court finds that the ALJ's hypothetical 

question accounted for Plaintiff's limitations and the ALJ was entitled to rely on 

the vocational expert's conclusion that he could perform his past work as a 

substitute teacher. Finally, based on the circumstances highlighted in the Report 

and Recommendation, the Court concludes that the ALJ did not err in finding that 

Plaintiff was not entirely credible with regard to the extent of his impairments. 

Accordingly, based on the above, as well as the reasoning within the 

Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff's Objections (ECF No. 18) are 

2 The Magistrate Judge considered the issues Plaintiff raises within his 

Objections. The Court finds it unnecessary to repeat the Magistrate Judge's analysis 

on these same issues. 

Page 3 of 4 

Case: 2:11-cv-00685-MHW-EPD Doc #: 19 Filed: 09/18/12 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
OVERRULED and the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 17) is ADOPTED. 

The decision of ~he Commissioner is AFFIRMED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

MIC AEL H. WATSON, JUDGE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

Page 4 of 4 

Case: 2:11-cv-00685-MHW-EPD Doc #: 19 Filed: 09/18/12 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>